Thanks Marcus. I agree that the registrars constituency does not seem to have a consensus position on this topic. My view is that a registry operator can technically operate a thick and thin model in parallel, and the choice should be made available to registrars according to their business model and technical resources. Regards, Bruce
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marcus Faure Sent: Thursday, 22 July 2004 5:07 PM To: registrars@dnso.org Subject: [registrars] .net thick/thin discussion
Dear all,
following a discussion among german-speaking registrars, I would like to state that the rc should reconsider its position on the "thinness" of .net. I understand that at least some people in the rc are in favour of a thin model, however, our little group has unanimously decided to favour a thick model. Therefore, the rc recommendation should not favour thick or thin as at least at this point in time there is no clear vote for either direction.
Yours, Marcus
on behalf of core, key systems, psi-usa and schlund
Hello, I personally think that this will cause a lot of confusion and support for the registrars. One of the reasons I support thick is that we have so many broken whois servers out there. A thin approach will not cure this. Yours, Marcus
Thanks Marcus.
I agree that the registrars constituency does not seem to have a consensus position on this topic.
My view is that a registry operator can technically operate a thick and thin model in parallel, and the choice should be made available to registrars according to their business model and technical resources.
Regards, Bruce
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marcus Faure Sent: Thursday, 22 July 2004 5:07 PM To: registrars@dnso.org Subject: [registrars] .net thick/thin discussion
Dear all,
following a discussion among german-speaking registrars, I would like to state that the rc should reconsider its position on the "thinness" of .net. I understand that at least some people in the rc are in favour of a thin model, however, our little group has unanimously decided to favour a thick model. Therefore, the rc recommendation should not favour thick or thin as at least at this point in time there is no clear vote for either direction.
Yours, Marcus
on behalf of core, key systems, psi-usa and schlund
I agree with Marcus. I like thick registries, whois is easier to manage and having most of the TLD (.biz, .info, .name, .org) being thick today, I wish I could have all my system as much consistent as possible. Less code to maintain = less cost. JM Marcus Faure wrote:
Hello,
I personally think that this will cause a lot of confusion and support for the registrars. One of the reasons I support thick is that we have so many broken whois servers out there. A thin approach will not cure this.
Yours, Marcus
Thanks Marcus.
I agree that the registrars constituency does not seem to have a consensus position on this topic.
My view is that a registry operator can technically operate a thick and thin model in parallel, and the choice should be made available to registrars according to their business model and technical resources.
Regards, Bruce
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marcus Faure Sent: Thursday, 22 July 2004 5:07 PM To: registrars@dnso.org Subject: [registrars] .net thick/thin discussion
Dear all,
following a discussion among german-speaking registrars, I would like to state that the rc should reconsider its position on the "thinness" of .net. I understand that at least some people in the rc are in favour of a thin model, however, our little group has unanimously decided to favour a thick model. Therefore, the rc recommendation should not favour thick or thin as at least at this point in time there is no clear vote for either direction.
Yours, Marcus
on behalf of core, key systems, psi-usa and schlund
Bruce, I agree that a registry operator can technically operate a thick and thin model in parallel, and the choice can be made available to registrars according to their business model and technical resources. Jean-Michel, I agree that less code to maintain = less cost. I think that registrar selection between two registry-offered models can meet that goal. Eric
There are business reasons why you would want to operate your own whois. But giving up that, for example, you give up one more thing that makes you more like a "reseller" for a registry and less like a registrar. What's next? How about if we just operate web sites with links to the registry web site which handles all of the transactions and pays a commision? The "broken whois" reason can and should, as Bruce said, be handled by enforcement. I've noticed that certain registrars handle their resellers by posting the name of the "registration service provider" right in the whois. Has anyone thought how this would be handled with a thick model? I prefer this: Registration Service Provided By: eNom, Inc. Contact: paul.stahura@enom.com Visit: Domain name: enom.org Registrant Contact: eNom, Inc. DNS Manager (kelsie@enom.com) +1.4258838860 Fax: +1.4258833553 PO Box 7449 Bellevue, WA 98008 US Administrative Contact: eNom, Inc. DNS Manager (kelsie@enom.com) +1.4258838860 Fax: +1.4258833553 PO Box 7449 Bellevue, WA 98008 US (snip) to this: Domain ID:D3231451-LROR Domain Name:ENOM.ORG Created On:30-Oct-1998 05:00:00 UTC Last Updated On:14-Nov-2003 00:14:00 UTC Expiration Date:29-Oct-2007 05:00:00 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:R39-LROR Status:OK Registrant ID:876E360CB7A3B687 Registrant Name:DNS Manager Registrant Organization:eNom, Inc. Registrant Street1:PO Box 7449 Registrant City:Bellevue Registrant State/Province:WA Registrant Postal Code:98008 Registrant Country:US Registrant Email:kelsie@enom.com Admin ID:876E360CB7A3B687 Admin Name:DNS Manager Admin Organization:eNom, Inc. Admin Street1:PO Box 7449 Admin City:Bellevue Admin State/Province:WA Admin Postal Code:98008 Admin Country:US Admin Email:kelsie@enom.com (Machines of course prefer #2) Next, the registry whois doesn't contain the true "expiration" date. It currently contains the auto renew expiration date. So, with that issue it practically guarantees that even with a thick model the registrar has to maintain a parallel whois. Of course if machine readability is an issue, there is no reason that machine readable information can't follow the human readable information that appears in a registrar's whois. Larry Erlich http://www.DomainRegistry.com Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
Bruce,
I agree that a registry operator can technically operate a thick and thin model in parallel, and the choice can be made available to registrars according to their business model and technical resources.
Jean-Michel,
I agree that less code to maintain = less cost. I think that registrar selection between two registry-offered models can meet that goal.
Eric
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc. 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com -----------------------------------------------------------------
Hello, even with a thin model, the first point of contact is the registry, e.g. you have to go to the Internic whois first before you know which other whois to query. Therefore the registry must be monitored closely, but IMHO doing your own whois does not help here. Sitefinder is a keyword for this discussion. As long as we do not have standardized whois output, a thin model is more difficult to deal with. I also think that the per-registrar thin model that Bruce proposed will cause this extra work, and honestly I do not believe that the average user understands it. A registration service provider can be handled with an optional maintainer field in the whois. We have one on the CORE whois that defaults to the member number, but can also contain a URL. Yours, Marcus
Marcus Faure wrote:
Hello,
even with a thin model, the first point of contact is the registry, e.g. you have to go to the Internic whois first before you know which other whois to query. Therefore the registry must be monitored closely, but IMHO doing your own whois does not help here. Sitefinder is a keyword for this discussion.
As long as we do not have standardized whois output, a thin model is more difficult to deal with. I also think that the per-registrar thin model that Bruce proposed will cause this extra work, and honestly I do not believe that the average user understands it.
Can you explain what you mean by "honestly I do not believe that the average user understands it"?
A registration service provider can be handled with an optional maintainer field in the whois. We have one on the CORE whois that defaults to the member number, but can also contain a URL.
How are you going to translate the "optional maintainer field" in the registry whois output so that a registrant can understand who the reseller is? Are you going to ask the registry to lookup and display 2-3 lines of human readable information? And that they will agree to even make modification to add this field? Will you also have the registry (if thick model) display the registrar in a human readable format? Or does the registrant have to do a further search with a code to find out, for example, who registrar "R33-LROR" is? Larry Erlich http://www.DomainRegistry.com
Yours, Marcus
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc. 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com -----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Erlich schrieb:
Marcus Faure wrote:
Hello,
even with a thin model, the first point of contact is the registry, e.g. you have to go to the Internic whois first before you know which other whois to query. Therefore the registry must be monitored closely, but IMHO doing your own whois does not help here. Sitefinder is a keyword for this discussion.
As long as we do not have standardized whois output, a thin model is more difficult to deal with. I also think that the per-registrar thin model that Bruce proposed will cause this extra work, and honestly I do not believe that the average user understands it.
Can you explain what you mean by "honestly I do not believe that the average user understands it"?
What happened during the .ORG Transition? Didn't you receive many customer inquiries regarding the WHOIS? We sure did, as our customers were confused. We need to think more for the customer and to the benefit of the registrant himself instead of solely the registrar. The confusion beneath the registrants was exactlly due to the thick+thin-whois! There were a lot of problems regarding registrar transfers due to one registrar being "thin" and the other "thick", which resulted in more support --> higher costs!
A registration service provider can be handled with an optional maintainer field in the whois. We have one on the CORE whois that defaults to the member number, but can also contain a URL.
How are you going to translate the "optional maintainer field" in the registry whois output so that a registrant can understand who the reseller is? Are you going to ask the registry to lookup and display 2-3 lines of human readable information? And that they will agree to even make modification to add this field?
This should be proposed as an EPP extension anyway. At least one line of text per domain name should be usable for such purposes.
Will you also have the registry (if thick model) display the registrar in a human readable format? Or does the registrant have to do a further search with a code to find out, for example, who registrar "R33-LROR" is?
This is up to the registry. However there should be a webinterface that shows all informations 'pretty-printed'. Best regards, Jens Wagner CTO Key-Systems GmbH Key-Systems GmbH Prager Ring 4-12 66482 Zweibrücken Tel.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 50 Fax.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 51 Email: support@rrpproxy.net www.key-systems.net www.domaindiscount24.com www.RRPproxy.net www.Key-Fashion.de
Larry Erlich
Yours, Marcus
EPP or IRIS doesn't really matter (although I think IRIS makes more sense). The point is that an XML based schema for transfer related Whois queries is a good solution. Tim -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jens Wagner Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 4:40 AM To: Larry Erlich Cc: faure@globvill.de; registrars@dnso.org; Alexander Siffrin Subject: Re: [registrars] .net thick/thin discussion Larry Erlich schrieb:
Marcus Faure wrote:
Hello,
even with a thin model, the first point of contact is the registry, e.g. you have to go to the Internic whois first before you know which other whois to query. Therefore the registry must be monitored closely, but IMHO doing your own whois does not help here. Sitefinder is a keyword for this discussion.
As long as we do not have standardized whois output, a thin model is more difficult to deal with. I also think that the per-registrar thin model that Bruce proposed will cause this extra work, and honestly I do not believe that the average user understands it.
Can you explain what you mean by "honestly I do not believe that the average user understands it"?
What happened during the .ORG Transition? Didn't you receive many customer inquiries regarding the WHOIS? We sure did, as our customers were confused. We need to think more for the customer and to the benefit of the registrant himself instead of solely the registrar. The confusion beneath the registrants was exactlly due to the thick+thin-whois! There were a lot of problems regarding registrar transfers due to one registrar being "thin" and the other "thick", which resulted in more support --> higher costs!
A registration service provider can be handled with an optional maintainer field in the whois. We have one on the CORE whois that defaults to the
member
number, but can also contain a URL.
How are you going to translate the "optional maintainer field" in the registry whois output so that a registrant can understand who the reseller is? Are you going to ask the registry to lookup and display 2-3 lines of human readable information? And that they will agree to even make modification to add this field?
This should be proposed as an EPP extension anyway. At least one line of text per domain name should be usable for such purposes.
Will you also have the registry (if thick model) display the registrar in a human readable format? Or does the registrant have to do a further search with a code to find out, for example, who registrar "R33-LROR" is?
This is up to the registry. However there should be a webinterface that shows all informations 'pretty-printed'. Best regards, Jens Wagner CTO Key-Systems GmbH Key-Systems GmbH Prager Ring 4-12 66482 Zweibrücken Tel.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 50 Fax.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 51 Email: support@rrpproxy.net www.key-systems.net www.domaindiscount24.com www.RRPproxy.net www.Key-Fashion.de
Larry Erlich
Yours, Marcus
Absolutely! IRIS has been designed for such queries, however it's not an RFC yet. The EPP protocol should be sufficient for this purpose. And we only need one protocol. - jens Tim Ruiz schrieb:
EPP or IRIS doesn't really matter (although I think IRIS makes more sense). The point is that an XML based schema for transfer related Whois queries is a good solution.
Tim
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jens Wagner Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 4:40 AM To: Larry Erlich Cc: faure@globvill.de; registrars@dnso.org; Alexander Siffrin Subject: Re: [registrars] .net thick/thin discussion
Larry Erlich schrieb:
Marcus Faure wrote:
Hello,
even with a thin model, the first point of contact is the registry, e.g.
you
have to go to the Internic whois first before you know which other whois to query. Therefore the registry must be monitored closely, but IMHO doing
your
own whois does not help here. Sitefinder is a keyword for this discussion.
As long as we do not have standardized whois output, a thin model is more difficult to deal with. I also think that the per-registrar thin model
that
Bruce proposed will cause this extra work, and honestly I do not believe
that
the average user understands it.
Can you explain what you mean by "honestly I do not believe that the
average
user understands it"?
What happened during the .ORG Transition? Didn't you receive many customer inquiries regarding the WHOIS? We sure did, as our customers were confused. We need to think more for the customer and to the benefit of the registrant himself instead of solely the registrar.
The confusion beneath the registrants was exactlly due to the thick+thin-whois! There were a lot of problems regarding registrar transfers due to one registrar being "thin" and the other "thick", which resulted in more support --> higher costs!
A registration service provider can be handled with an optional maintainer field in the whois. We have one on the CORE whois that defaults to the
member
number, but can also contain a URL.
How are you going to translate the "optional maintainer field" in the registry whois output so that a registrant can understand who the reseller is? Are you going to ask the registry to lookup and display 2-3 lines of human readable information? And that they
will
agree to even make modification to add this field?
This should be proposed as an EPP extension anyway. At least one line of text per domain name should be usable for such purposes.
Will you also have the registry (if thick model) display the registrar in a human readable format? Or does the registrant have to do a further search with a code to find out, for example, who registrar "R33-LROR" is?
This is up to the registry. However there should be a webinterface that shows all informations 'pretty-printed'.
Best regards,
Jens Wagner CTO Key-Systems GmbH
Key-Systems GmbH Prager Ring 4-12 66482 Zweibrücken Tel.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 50 Fax.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 51 Email: support@rrpproxy.net
www.key-systems.net www.domaindiscount24.com www.RRPproxy.net www.Key-Fashion.de
Larry Erlich
Yours, Marcus
Jens Wagner wrote:
Larry Erlich schrieb:
Marcus Faure wrote:
As long as we do not have standardized whois output, a thin model is more difficult to deal with. I also think that the per-registrar thin model that Bruce proposed will cause this extra work, and honestly I do not believe that the average user understands it.
Can you explain what you mean by "honestly I do not believe that the average user understands it"?
What happened during the .ORG Transition? Didn't you receive many customer inquiries regarding the WHOIS? We sure did, as our customers were confused. We need to think more for the customer and to the benefit of the registrant himself instead of solely the registrar.
The confusion beneath the registrants was exactlly due to the thick+thin-whois! There were a lot of problems regarding registrar transfers due to one registrar being "thin" and the other "thick", which resulted in more support --> higher costs!
We didn't have that issue but I now understand your point.
A registration service provider can be handled with an optional maintainer field in the whois. We have one on the CORE whois that defaults to the member number, but can also contain a URL.
How are you going to translate the "optional maintainer field" in the registry whois output so that a registrant can understand who the reseller is? Are you going to ask the registry to lookup and display 2-3 lines of human readable information? And that they will agree to even make modification to add this field?
This should be proposed as an EPP extension anyway. At least one line of text per domain name should be usable for such purposes.
There would have to be at least two lines of text per domain. One for the registrar with full contact information and one for the reseller. But I am still in favor of a thin model. Keep in mind that our whole system is setup as a thick model and I would rather not have to have the expense of re-writing our whole system to accomodate this change. I don't think you can assume that this is trivial for many registrars. This will be expensive.
Will you also have the registry (if thick model) display the registrar in a human readable format? Or does the registrant have to do a further search with a code to find out, for example, who registrar "R33-LROR" is?
This is up to the registry. However there should be a webinterface that shows all informations 'pretty-printed'.
Doesn't handle the situation where another entity wants to query port 43 to display the information without creating their own routine to "pretty-print" the info. In other words it will only be nicely human readable if viewed through the registry web interface but not through another entities web interface. Larry Erlich http://www.DomainRegistry.com
Best regards,
Jens Wagner CTO Key-Systems GmbH
Key-Systems GmbH Prager Ring 4-12 66482 Zweibrücken Tel.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 50 Fax.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 51 Email: support@rrpproxy.net
www.key-systems.net www.domaindiscount24.com www.RRPproxy.net www.Key-Fashion.de
Larry Erlich
Yours, Marcus
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc. 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com -----------------------------------------------------------------
The only confusion we had with thin/thick transfers during the ORG transition was due to the authcode. However, a thick/thin choice where EPP and authcodes are used for both models would avoid that confusion. You do not HAVE to be thick to use EPP and authcodes. Tim -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Larry Erlich Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 10:47 AM To: Jens Wagner Cc: registrars@dnso.org Subject: Re: [registrars] .net thick/thin discussion Jens Wagner wrote:
Larry Erlich schrieb:
Marcus Faure wrote:
As long as we do not have standardized whois output, a thin model is more difficult to deal with. I also think that the per-registrar thin model that Bruce proposed will cause this extra work, and honestly I do not believe that the average user understands it.
Can you explain what you mean by "honestly I do not believe that the average user understands it"?
What happened during the .ORG Transition? Didn't you receive many customer inquiries regarding the WHOIS? We sure did, as our customers were confused. We need to think more for the customer and to the benefit of the registrant himself instead of solely the registrar.
The confusion beneath the registrants was exactlly due to the thick+thin-whois! There were a lot of problems regarding registrar transfers due to one registrar being "thin" and the other "thick", which resulted in more support --> higher costs!
We didn't have that issue but I now understand your point.
A registration service provider can be handled with an optional
maintainer
field in the whois. We have one on the CORE whois that defaults to the member number, but can also contain a URL.
How are you going to translate the "optional maintainer field" in the registry whois output so that a registrant can understand who the reseller is? Are you going to ask the registry to lookup and display 2-3 lines of human readable information? And that they will agree to even make modification to add this field?
This should be proposed as an EPP extension anyway. At least one line of text per domain name should be usable for such purposes.
There would have to be at least two lines of text per domain. One for the registrar with full contact information and one for the reseller. But I am still in favor of a thin model. Keep in mind that our whole system is setup as a thick model and I would rather not have to have the expense of re-writing our whole system to accomodate this change. I don't think you can assume that this is trivial for many registrars. This will be expensive.
Will you also have the registry (if thick model) display the registrar in a human readable format? Or does the registrant have to do a further search with a code to find out, for example, who registrar "R33-LROR" is?
This is up to the registry. However there should be a webinterface that shows all informations 'pretty-printed'.
Doesn't handle the situation where another entity wants to query port 43 to display the information without creating their own routine to "pretty-print" the info. In other words it will only be nicely human readable if viewed through the registry web interface but not through another entities web interface. Larry Erlich http://www.DomainRegistry.com
Best regards,
Jens Wagner CTO Key-Systems GmbH
Key-Systems GmbH Prager Ring 4-12 66482 Zweibrücken Tel.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 50 Fax.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 51 Email: support@rrpproxy.net
www.key-systems.net www.domaindiscount24.com www.RRPproxy.net www.Key-Fashion.de
Larry Erlich
Yours, Marcus
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc. 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com -----------------------------------------------------------------
Thats right. However RRP cannot be used as it doesn't know about auth-codes. So a transition to (thin-)EPP would be required in that case, too. How should transfers from thick to thin be handled? Should the registry just remove the contacts from the domain? To initiate a transfer from thin to thick, all contact handles must be provided beforehand (to keep the system consistent). This would require some EPP extension, and complicate the transfer process for thick registrars, so the registrars could not perform business on an equal basis anymore. I think we should not have a mixed thin/thick model. - jens Tim Ruiz schrieb:
The only confusion we had with thin/thick transfers during the ORG transition was due to the authcode. However, a thick/thin choice where EPP and authcodes are used for both models would avoid that confusion.
You do not HAVE to be thick to use EPP and authcodes.
Tim
Hi all, my original intention was to demonstrate that there is no unanimous position towords thick or thin. I think this is clear now. Marcus
Larry Erlich schrieb:
Jens Wagner wrote:
This should be proposed as an EPP extension anyway. At least one line of text per domain name should be usable for such purposes.
There would have to be at least two lines of text per domain. One for the registrar with full contact information and one for the reseller. But I am still in favor of a thin model. Keep in mind that our whole system is setup as a thick model and I would rather not have to have the expense of re-writing our whole system to accomodate this change. I don't think you can assume that this is trivial for many registrars. This will be expensive.
How do you handle .org, .biz and .info right now? They are thick, too.
This is up to the registry. However there should be a webinterface that shows all informations 'pretty-printed'.
Doesn't handle the situation where another entity wants to query port 43 to display the information without creating their own routine to "pretty-print" the info. In other words it will only be nicely human readable if viewed through the registry web interface but not through another entities web interface.
Usually every registrar has its own "pritty-print" routines right now. How do you display .com/.net whois data of other registrars, or whois data for .biz/.info domains? - jens
Jens Wagner wrote:
Larry Erlich schrieb:
Jens Wagner wrote:
This should be proposed as an EPP extension anyway. At least one line of text per domain name should be usable for such purposes.
There would have to be at least two lines of text per domain. One for the registrar with full contact information and one for the reseller. But I am still in favor of a thin model. Keep in mind that our whole system is setup as a thick model and I would rather not have to have the expense of re-writing our whole system to accomodate this change. I don't think you can assume that this is trivial for many registrars. This will be expensive.
How do you handle .org, .biz and .info right now? They are thick, too.
We had to build a separate method for .org .info and it is not even done yet.
This is up to the registry. However there should be a webinterface that shows all informations 'pretty-printed'.
Doesn't handle the situation where another entity wants to query port 43 to display the information without creating their own routine to "pretty-print" the info. In other words it will only be nicely human readable if viewed through the registry web interface but not through another entities web interface.
Usually every registrar has its own "pritty-print" routines right now. How do you display .com/.net whois data of other registrars, or whois data for .biz/.info domains?
First, I don't know how you can say "usually every registrar has its own pritty-print routines right now" when you then ask "How do you display". If you didn't even investigate how we do it, then how can you make such a general statement? Here is my survey: I just checked register.com for "john.info" and the display was right from the .info whois. Same for godaddy.com Same for us. Second, not only registrars display queried whois information. There are plenty of resellers, ISP's and others who legitimately offer whois display through a web page and will only display the registry whois output. Larry Erlich http://www.DomainRegistry.com
- jens
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc. 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com -----------------------------------------------------------------
participants (7)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine -
Jean-Michel Becar -
Jens Wagner -
Larry Erlich -
Marcus Faure -
Tim Ruiz